Dawn of The Dead (remake) or Land of The Dead?

[Knight]

I see that a Day of The Dead remake is coming out this year starring Ving Rhames no less (in a different role than the one he played in Dawn) so I see that we are going to be blessed with another zombie flick. I really liked the Dawn remake but didnt really care for Land too much so I wanted to see overall which one people liked better.

[Michael24]

Dawn of the Dead remake is the best zombie movie I've seen, and the first one where I actually found them scary.

I thought Land of the Dead was terrible; bored me out of my mind. Although I do enjoy Day of the Dead and the Night of the Living Dead remake (which I thought blew away the original), I otherwise find Romero and his zombie movies extremely overrated.

[The Landstander]

I thought the Dawn remake was trying way too hard. I liked the first 15 minutes, then it died out in a flurry of MTV-styled sequences and lame characterization.

Land wasn't that good either, but I liked some of it. Dennis Hopper is always fun, at least.

[Icer]

The remake of Dawn is my favorite Zombie movie, although I liked Land too.

[Hades]

No contest, Dawn of the Dead. Dawn actually made sense and was suspenseful. Land of the Dead however had me cringing at the piss poor acting and trying to NOT fall asleep. I do not know why, but Romero's own zombie movies put me to sleep, which is why I'm thankful Capcom booted him off the RE movie franchise years ago.

[Hanshotfirst113]

No contest, Dawn of the Dead. Dawn actually made sense and was suspenseful. Land of the Dead however had me cringing at the piss poor acting and trying to NOT fall asleep. I do not know why, but Romero's own zombie movies put me to sleep, which is why I'm thankful Capcom booted him off the RE movie franchise years ago.

Instead putting on Paul W.S. Anderson. Land of the Dead was flawed yes, but like all of Romero's films, it offered something intelligent in terms of social criticism and satire. Land didn't have the grittiness of the three previous entries, and I felt that it was attempting to imitate its imitators in a way, making it too slick. Given that I expected the master at work, it was quite disappointing, but it did aspire to something, which more than can be said more most movies these days. At the end of the day, Romero's horror films are intelligent, and that's more than can be said for most genre fair, especially these days.


I thought Land of the Dead was terrible; bored me out of my mind. Although I do enjoy Day of the Dead and the Night of the Living Dead remake (which I thought blew away the original), I otherwise find Romero and his zombie movies extremely overrated.

Generation gap? Of course, I'm pretty young, so...I've always found Romero's films quite dated, but by the same token, I also believe that that is part of the intention. They manage to encapsulate the eras which they represent so perfectly. The original Night remains as good as it ever was, in my ever so humble opinion. Gritty and chilling, its defined a genre for almost four decades, and its still being imitated today. But hey, that's just me :).

[Lord Dalek]

Both these films are problematic and can't equal the excellent balance between social commentary and carnage in the classic trilogy. However if I did have to choose I'd say Land as it still has that classic "they're EVERYWHERE" feel that I always associate with Romero's films and not the 28 Days Later...in a mall-style that the Dawn Remake used. I do not like "fast zombies", it takes all the horror out and replaces it with bad MTV-esque cutting and pasting. Cheep!

I am heavily anticipating Romero's return to guerilla style filmmaking in Diary of the Dead. We haven't seen that kind of realism since Day (which, on repeated viewings, has become my favorite Dead flick) and I hope George uses it to maximum effect.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

There's a difference between horror and action. This is like people saying, they thought James Cameron's Aliens was a better horror movie than Alien. No it is not. It is an action movie, and it has more moments of suspense and excitement because of this.

Dawn of the Dead is really an action movie, not a horror movie.

[Zeonic Freak]

There's a difference between horror and action. This is like people saying, they thought James Cameron's Aliens was a better horror movie than Alien. No it is not. It is an action movie, and it has more moments of suspense and excitement because of this.

Dawn of the Dead is really an action movie, not a horror movie.

I saw Aliens on tv when i was like 12 or 13, it litterally scared me to watch, but i thought it was just so cool at the some time, and Bill Paxtons "Game over man, GAME OVER" line is a classic...

For a sec i thought you said John Carpenter... which is one of my fav directors.

[Leaping Larry Jojo]

I saw Aliens on tv when i was like 12 or 13, it litterally scared me to watch, but i thought it was just so cool at the some time, and Bill Paxtons "Game over man, GAME OVER" line is a classic...

For a sec i thought you said John Carpenter... which is one of my fav directors.

Yeah, but as Ripley gains confidence the audience gains confidence. By the end of it, it's a rip-roaring, kick-ass action epic. Aliens get blown away by the hundreds. Explosions everywhere. Guns, guns and MORE guns! Flamethrowers, grenade launchers, etc, etc. I love the movie...but I watch it more for the buttkicking than the horror elements.

Alien has more of a slow burn...and there is an undercurrent of overwhelming dread running throughout. I like Aliens better as pure entertainment, but Alien is more a horror movie.

I think Dawn of the Dead resembles Aliens quite a bit. Except for the downbeat ending.

[Michael24]

Generation gap? Of course, I'm pretty young, so...I've always found Romero's films quite dated, but by the same token, I also believe that that is part of the intention. They manage to encapsulate the eras which they represent so perfectly. The original Night remains as good as it ever was, in my ever so humble opinion. Gritty and chilling, its defined a genre for almost four decades, and its still being imitated today. But hey, that's just me :).

I'm tired of the "generation gap" thing always being used. Just because I'm young (well, 28, but still) doesn't mean that I can't watch and enjoy older films. Many of my favorite movies are older. But I just don't see the big deal over Romero's Dead movies. Like I said, I do actually like Day of the Dead (I found it suspenseful, surprisingly, and I liked some of the ideas about trying to communicate with zombies), but otherwise, I find the others boring and uninteresting. At least I know I'm not alone in this thinking, because I've met other horror afficinados who feel the same way.

And for the record, I find fast zombies more frightening than the slow ones, which I guess explains why I've never really enjoyed any zombie movies other than the Dawn of the Dead remake and the first two Return of the Living Dead movies.

[Knight]

Dawn of the Dead remake is the best zombie movie I've seen, and the first one where I actually found them scary.

I thought Land of the Dead was terrible; bored me out of my mind. Although I do enjoy Day of the Dead and the Night of the Living Dead remake (which I thought blew away the original), I otherwise find Romero and his zombie movies extremely overrated.

I pretty much felt the same about Land it just wasnt nearly as exciting as Dawn and had really slow pacing. Another poster said Dawn was more like a action movie than horror but I think it was a good blend of both with a lot of suspence thrown in. Its definitly the most enjoyable zombie flick I have seen to date.

[Adam Tyner]

My long, rambling explanation why I'd vote for the Dawn remake. (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=24134)

[Hanshotfirst113]

I'm tired of the "generation gap" thing always being used. Just because I'm young (well, 28, but still) doesn't mean that I can't watch and enjoy older films. Many of my favorite movies are older. But I just don't see the big deal over Romero's Dead movies. Like I said, I do actually like Day of the Dead (I found it suspenseful, surprisingly, and I liked some of the ideas about trying to communicate with zombies), but otherwise, I find the others boring and uninteresting. At least I know I'm not alone in this thinking, because I've met other horror afficinados who feel the same way.

And for the record, I find fast zombies more frightening than the slow ones, which I guess explains why I've never really enjoyed any zombie movies other than the Dawn of the Dead remake and the first two Return of the Living Dead movies.

SORRY! Bad argument on my part.

[Greg1]

Neither of these films are that good, but I'll have to vote for Land of the Dead for originality points. The Dawn of the Dead remake (as well as the NOTLD remake) tries to hard to jazz old ideas up, and it just ends up a mess.

[Noukon]

Neither comes close to touching the Romero originals, but Dawn of the Dead is definitely the better of the two.

[Hanshotfirst113]

I'm tired of the "generation gap" thing always being used. Just because I'm young (well, 28, but still) doesn't mean that I can't watch and enjoy older films. Many of my favorite movies are older. But I just don't see the big deal over Romero's Dead movies. Like I said, I do actually like Day of the Dead (I found it suspenseful, surprisingly, and I liked some of the ideas about trying to communicate with zombies), but otherwise, I find the others boring and uninteresting. At least I know I'm not alone in this thinking, because I've met other horror afficinados who feel the same way.

And for the record, I find fast zombies more frightening than the slow ones, which I guess explains why I've never really enjoyed any zombie movies other than the Dawn of the Dead remake and the first two Return of the Living Dead movies.

Well, then, if you don't like zombie movies in general, then it follows that you wouldn't be interested in the ones which pretty much defined and continue to define the genre. The "big deal" over Romero's films is the same thing that's "the big deal" over so many films of its ilk. It pretty much defined the genre as we know it. Certainly, his films have dated in some ways, but (I assume by "other horror afficionodos" you mean the Fangoria crowd) what you're describing is the "MTV" (cliche, I know, and so broad that it's a loaded phrase, so take it as you will) slickness of Land and the Dawn (I'm not criticizing the latter, not having seen all of it). I guess that you're sayinmg that you think that it's historical importance is greater than its entertainment (a relative term when referring to a movie about people getting eaten alive), but the level of allegory and relevance which Romero infuses into the genre (with varying effectiveness, certainly) is something seldom seen. Romero's pictures are different creatures (pun intended) than most other genre fare (there're plenty of intelligent horror films out there, just few similar in tenor). I'm not saying you should love the films, or that you "don't understand" them (I hate being told that), but rather attempting to meet halfway. Whew! Complex post. And I bet no one will answer it.

[AlphaPrime]

I voted Land, the Dawn remake just wasn't that great IMO and i hate the new style zombies.

[Michael24]

Well, then, if you don't like zombie movies in general, then it follows that you wouldn't be interested in the ones which pretty much defined and continue to define the genre.

I don't know if I ever said I hated zombie movies plain and simple. I don't have anything against zombie movies in general. I find the concept of zombies to have a lot of scary potential. (Heck, I even did a report on "real world" zombies for an anthropology class in college.) I just haven't enjoyed many of the zombie movies I've seen. I guess, IMO, most zombie movies just haven't "gotten in right." (Though, like much else, that's all subjective and in the eye of the beholder.)


Certainly, his films have dated in some ways, but (I assume by "other horror afficionodos" you mean the Fangoria crowd) what you're describing is the "MTV" (cliche, I know, and so broad that it's a loaded phrase, so take it as you will) slickness of Land and the Dawn (I'm not criticizing the latter, not having seen all of it).I'm been to two Fangoria conventions, but didn't hear much about the Dead movies there, surprisingly. I mostly meant in my conversations with other horror fans on various messages and those I've know/met in real life: people I worked with, went to school with, even several other students in some of my film classes. For years I heard nothing but an ungodly ammount of praise for the films, so it was kind of refreshing to find so many people felt like me after all. Even one of my film teachers thought they weren't all that great, which was a big surprise to me because most film teachers seem to eat up anything that's "artsy-fartsy" and "outside the mainstream."


I guess that you're sayinmg that you think that it's historical importance is greater than its entertainment (a relative term when referring to a movie about people getting eaten alive), but the level of allegory and relevance which Romero infuses into the genre (with varying effectiveness, certainly) is something seldom seen.I guess I can appreciate what it did for the genre, even if I don't like it. (Kind of like the way I am with Citizen Kane, but that's another debate. :D )

Bottom line, I don't have a problem with people who like Romero and his movies. That's fine. I just personally find both overrated. (And I'm still amused at the fact people find so much allegorical--is that even a word?--elements in the first film when there pretty much is none. Romero just read too much into his own press when he did the sequels.)


And I bet no one will answer it.I answered. :D